Lexi Thompson ANA

[sui generis]

My recollection is that the information was received via email to two of the LPGA Committee members at the event. I suggest that those emails were not from some random dude sitting on his recliner in a double-wide in West Virginia with a Bud Light in his hand.

[SHIVAN]

...If they had been it would have been easily discernible....

 

It might have been, or might not have been. We only have that luxury to start the analysis when an introduction of HD video takes place. Then it comes down to we think that should have been discernible because the ultra zoom makes a native two pixel-four pixel width, which we are not measuring, look like it's 2".

It moved from one side of a coin to another. If Lexi was paying attention she could/would have seen it. Yes-the HD zoom enabled viewers to see it from 60 feet away. Her eyes were three or four feet away-tops.

 

Again, without measuring pixels, using some sort of calibration, the effect of super-slo-mo HD zoom distorts reality. Or do you not agree with that as a standalone sentiment? If you don't then we have no further discourse, as it's a well known fact of photo-editing and production, that it does.

 

You can, with nearly 100% accuracy, on calibrated equipment, measure pixel width and get a very close to precise answer on exactly how far it moved. That is not being employed, as far as I can discern.

 

I watched it, originally believing I was going to see something like DJ's ball moving at Oakmont, and I got something that is in millimeters of difference.

[Shilgy]

Probably part of my disconnect. Aside from this site I'm not a participant in social media. At all. Have no use for the drama that it's ruled by. And so I really dont have an opinion on that except that I put no stock in Social media opinions. Calling someone a cheater won't make it true.

How about when people see the video on Facebook-or Instagram? I am like you and not on it at all except this site. But golf would be dealt an even bigger black eye imo if these type of gaffes when unpunished and then posted elsewhere.

[Shilgy]

...If they had been it would have been easily discernible....

 

It might have been, or might not have been. We only have that luxury to start the analysis when an introduction of HD video takes place. Then it comes down to we think that should have been discernible because the ultra zoom makes a native two pixel-four pixel width, which we are not measuring, look like it's 2".

It moved from one side of a coin to another. If Lexi was paying attention she could/would have seen it. Yes-the HD zoom enabled viewers to see it from 60 feet away. Her eyes were three or four feet away-tops.

 

Again, without measuring pixels, using some sort of calibration, the effect of super-slo-mo HD zoom distorts reality. Or do you not agree with that as a standalone sentiment? If you don't then we have no further discourse, as it's a well known fact of photo-editing and production, that it does.

 

You can, with nearly 100% accuracy, on calibrated equipment, measure pixel width and get a very close to precise answer on exactly how far it moved. That is not being employed, as far as I can discern.

 

I watched it, originally believing I was going to see something like DJ's ball moving at Oakmont, and I got something that is in millimeters of difference.

It is an amazing thing-is it not? That two people can view the same video and walk away with totally differing opinions on what they saw.

[Shipwreck]

Shouldn't it be up to the player(s), rules officials and committee to see an infraction and impart the penalty within a reasonable manner?

 

What if a player's best friend sees an infraction on TV, calls the player, and the player tells the committee? You OK with that?

 

No that's still not okay. An outside agency, having absolutely nothing to do with the game being played at that moment in time, is influencing the outcome of that round. Sure, on paper your scenario might sound all well and good, within the "nature of the game", but someone phoning me and saying "hey I noticed that 5 holes back you did this which was a penalty" does absolutely nothing for me. So now I have to think back 20 shots, never mind the tournament at hand and the shot I'm about to take, and question what happened? No thanks.

 

The USGA just needs to come out and say "while we appreciate the at home spectators trying to keep the spirit of the game alive, we will no longer be accepting phone in, email, snail mail, carrier pigeon etc. statuses of a players infraction."

[ibradley]

I played today and paid extra attention every time I marked the ball. I use a penny. I play 200 plus rounds a year. On good greens it is very easy to put the ball back in the same spot. I can't understand how Lexi could replace it so far off. I hate saying this but it makes me question her intentions.

[DaveLeeNC]

Shouldn't it be up to the player(s), rules officials and committee to see an infraction and impart the penalty within a reasonable manner?

 

What if a player's best friend sees an infraction on TV, calls the player, and the player tells the committee? You OK with that?

 

No that's still not okay. An outside agency, having absolutely nothing to do with the game being played at that moment in time, is influencing the outcome of that round. Sure, on paper your scenario might sound all well and good, within the "nature of the game", but someone phoning me and saying "hey I noticed that 5 holes back you did this which was a penalty" does absolutely nothing for me. So now I have to think back 20 shots, never mind the tournament at hand and the shot I'm about to take, and question what happened? No thanks.

 

The USGA just needs to come out and say "while we appreciate the at home spectators trying to keep the spirit of the game alive, we will no longer be accepting phone in, email, snail mail, carrier pigeon etc. statuses of a players infraction."

 

Just to place credit or blame where it belongs, I don't think this was a USGA event and I assume the USGA had nothing to do with this (other than co-owning the Rules of Golf).

 

dave

[HitEmTrue]

No that's still not okay. An outside agency, having absolutely nothing to do with the game being played at that moment in time, is influencing the outcome of that round. Sure, on paper your scenario might sound all well and good, within the "nature of the game", but someone phoning me and saying "hey I noticed that 5 holes back you did this which was a penalty" does absolutely nothing for me. So now I have to think back 20 shots, never mind the tournament at hand and the shot I'm about to take, and question what happened? No thanks.

 

Fair enough.

 

What if player in the scoring tent sees it on TV and notifies committee?

[SHIVAN]

It is an amazing thing-is it not? That two people can view the same video and walk away with totally differing opinions on what they saw.

 

I am not sure that we are walking away, saying two different things - actually. What I am saying is that they are using technology in the crudest way possible, and they are guessing that it would be discernible, but not actually in possession of the knowledge that it would or wouldn't be.

 

If I told you that she, factually, moved the ball 1.1mm, would you possibly re-think that it was discernible to the naked eye? If I told you that, factually, she moved it 3/4", would that change your opinion? Right now, we have a crude zoomed in HD video with no basis in what that measurement is showing us. Then the committee is using that tech to say, holy cow, look how much that moved across the 55" HD screen we are watching it on. It looks egregious.

 

When I saw the unedited video, knowing I was going to be looking for a sleight of hand, I sort of said to myself, "Did that really move? Maybe just a shadow. Maybe it was off a bit, maybe not."

[SHIVAN]

No that's still not okay. An outside agency, having absolutely nothing to do with the game being played at that moment in time, is influencing the outcome of that round. Sure, on paper your scenario might sound all well and good, within the "nature of the game", but someone phoning me and saying "hey I noticed that 5 holes back you did this which was a penalty" does absolutely nothing for me. So now I have to think back 20 shots, never mind the tournament at hand and the shot I'm about to take, and question what happened? No thanks.

 

Fair enough.

 

What if player in the scoring tent sees it on TV and notifies committee?

 

Using tech to determine that we should review it with more tech, to determine if we think it could have been perceptible to the naked eye. Tough spot., when crudely using technology such as they are.....

[Sawgrass]

Shouldn't it be up to the player(s), rules officials and committee to see an infraction and impart the penalty within a reasonable manner?

 

What if a player's best friend sees an infraction on TV, calls the player, and the player tells the committee? You OK with that?

 

No that's still not okay. An outside agency, having absolutely nothing to do with the game being played at that moment in time, is influencing the outcome of that round. Sure, on paper your scenario might sound all well and good, within the "nature of the game", but someone phoning me and saying "hey I noticed that 5 holes back you did this which was a penalty" does absolutely nothing for me. So now I have to think back 20 shots, never mind the tournament at hand and the shot I'm about to take, and question what happened? No thanks.

 

The USGA just needs to come out and say "while we appreciate the at home spectators trying to keep the spirit of the game alive, we will no longer be accepting phone in, email, snail mail, carrier pigeon etc. statuses of a players infraction."

 

Just to place credit or blame where it belongs, I don't think this was a USGA event and I assume the USGA had nothing to do with this (other than co-owning the Rules of Golf).

 

dave

 

Yes, though to be fair, the tournament was run under the ROG which in D 34-3/9 in part it says:

 

"Testimony of those who are not a part of the competition, including spectators, must be accepted and evaluated (Decision 27/12). It is also appropriate to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt."

[HitEmTrue]

It is an amazing thing-is it not? That two people can view the same video and walk away with totally differing opinions on what they saw.

 

I am not sure that we are walking away, saying two different things - actually. What I am saying is that they are using technology in the crudest way possible, and they are guessing that it would be discernible, but not actually in possession of the knowledge that it would or wouldn't be.

 

If I told you that she, factually, moved the ball 1.1mm, would you possibly re-think that it was discernible to the naked eye? If I told you that, factually, she moved it 3/4", would that change your opinion? Right now, we have a crude zoomed in HD video with no basis in what that measurement is showing us. Then the committee is using that tech to say, holy cow, look how much that moved across the 55" HD screen we are watching it on. It looks egregious.

 

When I saw the unedited video, knowing I was going to be looking for a sleight of hand, I sort of said to myself, "Did that really move? Maybe just a shadow. Maybe it was off a bit, maybe not."

 

She moved it at least the diameter of a golf ball.

[Wooderson]

It is an amazing thing-is it not? That two people can view the same video and walk away with totally differing opinions on what they saw.

 

I am not sure that we are walking away, saying two different things - actually. What I am saying is that they are using technology in the crudest way possible, and they are guessing that it would be discernible, but not actually in possession of the knowledge that it would or wouldn't be.

 

If I told you that she, factually, moved the ball 1.1mm, would you possibly re-think that it was discernible to the naked eye? If I told you that, factually, she moved it 3/4", would that change your opinion? Right now, we have a crude zoomed in HD video with no basis in what that measurement is showing us. Then the committee is using that tech to say, holy cow, look how much that moved across the 55" HD screen we are watching it on. It looks egregious.

 

When I saw the unedited video, knowing I was going to be looking for a sleight of hand, I sort of said to myself, "Did that really move? Maybe just a shadow. Maybe it was off a bit, maybe not."

 

She moved it at least the diameter of a golf ball.

 

That's idiotic

[DaveLeeNC]

Yes, though to be fair, the tournament was run under the ROG which in D 34-3/9 in part it says:

 

"Testimony of those who are not a part of the competition, including spectators, must be accepted and evaluated (Decision 27/12). It is also appropriate to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt."

 

SG, that is a good point although it references a case "where there is a question on the table being raised from within the competition". This is a case where the issue is raised from outside the competition and is unknown inside the competition (as far as we know). If a committee said that their process would be to ignore input from sources that are unknown on issues that are unknown to them unless that input was solicited from someone in the competition, would the USGA accept that as a process that complies with the RoG? I'm not sure.

 

dave

 

ps. Here is the "modern solution" for those of you who object to this stuff happening at the highest levels of golf. Just flood the relevant authority with bogus observations. That would fix it. Calm down, everyone - this is intended to be a joke. :taunt:

[Soloman1]

 

She moved it at least the diameter of a golf ball.

 

If this is true, then my feelings about it go from disinterest to the tour should be considering suspending her for while to think about it.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

How many holes did she play that day? How many times did she mark? What advantage was gained by moving the ball, no closer to the hole, on a short putt?

[SHIVAN]

It is an amazing thing-is it not? That two people can view the same video and walk away with totally differing opinions on what they saw.

 

I am not sure that we are walking away, saying two different things - actually. What I am saying is that they are using technology in the crudest way possible, and they are guessing that it would be discernible, but not actually in possession of the knowledge that it would or wouldn't be.

 

If I told you that she, factually, moved the ball 1.1mm, would you possibly re-think that it was discernible to the naked eye? If I told you that, factually, she moved it 3/4", would that change your opinion? Right now, we have a crude zoomed in HD video with no basis in what that measurement is showing us. Then the committee is using that tech to say, holy cow, look how much that moved across the 55" HD screen we are watching it on. It looks egregious.

 

When I saw the unedited video, knowing I was going to be looking for a sleight of hand, I sort of said to myself, "Did that really move? Maybe just a shadow. Maybe it was off a bit, maybe not."

 

She moved it at least the diameter of a golf ball.

 

Maybe we define "diameter" differently. That ball was not moved the diameter of a ball. Sorry.

[DaveLeeNC]

How many holes did she play that day? How many times did she mark? What advantage was gained by moving the ball, no closer to the hole, on a short putt?

 

The speculation is that she avoided an imperfection in the green.

 

dave

[Shilgy]

It is an amazing thing-is it not? That two people can view the same video and walk away with totally differing opinions on what they saw.

 

I am not sure that we are walking away, saying two different things - actually. What I am saying is that they are using technology in the crudest way possible, and they are guessing that it would be discernible, but not actually in possession of the knowledge that it would or wouldn't be.

 

If I told you that she, factually, moved the ball 1.1mm, would you possibly re-think that it was discernible to the naked eye? If I told you that, factually, she moved it 3/4", would that change your opinion? Right now, we have a crude zoomed in HD video with no basis in what that measurement is showing us. Then the committee is using that tech to say, holy cow, look how much that moved across the 55" HD screen we are watching it on. It looks egregious.

 

When I saw the unedited video, knowing I was going to be looking for a sleight of hand, I sort of said to myself, "Did that really move? Maybe just a shadow. Maybe it was off a bit, maybe not."

 

She moved it at least the diameter of a golf ball.

 

Maybe we define "diameter" differently. That ball was not moved the diameter of a ball. Sorry.

Closer to the coins width. About an inch. Maybe 3/4".

[LeoLeo99]

How many holes did she play that day? How many times did she mark? What advantage was gained by moving the ball, no closer to the hole, on a short putt?

 

The speculation is that she avoided an imperfection in the green.

 

dave

 

It was a 1 foot putt.

 

My take on it, is that she marked funny to avoid coming near another player's line with her feet and then placed the ball like she normally would.

[SHIVAN]

Closet to the coins width. About an inch. Maybe 3/4".

 

That's the debate, looked like less. It's certainly less than 1.68", aka the diameter of a golf ball.

[MaccaRayDudley]

I don't have a problem with the rule. Having observed a clear infringement, I don't know what else the rules committee could have done. I just wonder when the rules violation was reported? Presumably it was the day before. Why did it take them until the 13th hole the following day to penalize the player. That's the shame in all of this. I doubt it gave her a material advantage. However, knowing how the rules can be applied she should have been more careful.

[CyFan]

If the LPGA intended to rule based on TV feeds, then they damn well should have had officials monitoring the broadcast in real time. Had they done so competently, the max penalty would have been two strokes...assessed prior to Lexi signing her card. Lexi may or may not have won, but would have known her task prior to teeing off on Sunday.

 

So while the LPGA claims they had no choice, they also demonstrated their complete incompetence. Major fail by the LPGA.

[Soloman1]

If you mark on one side and replace on the other, like Toski (and others) have done, that's more than the width of the coin. That's a whole ball plus width of coin.

 

Did she mark on one side and replace on the other?

[Sean2]

If this kind of thing is going to continue, then the Tours must scrutinize each and every shot of each and every player during each and every round. Penalties galore...for example, a player sets up to his/her ball in the rough. If you zoom in and look at it in super slo-motion you will notice the ball moved a micrometer, maybe even two.

 

I am waiting for the USGA to announce a zoom feature that can scrutinize the ball at the molecular level. "The ball moved two microns...two stroke penalty."

[Hardluckster]

Ironically, the rule change about signing for an incorrect scorecard that was instituted in 2015, I think, potentially cost Lexi an extra two strokes. Had that rule not been changed, Lexi could have been given the same allowance that Tiger was afforded at the 2013 Masters by Rule 33. The situations are that similar, it seems to me.

 

I understand that the Tiger situation is most likely the major event to prompt this rule change, so I guess the rule change accomplished it's goal. I think a lot fewer people would have viewed this instance with disdain, however, if the additional two strokes hasn't been attached.

 

JMO, of course.

[dpb5031]

If you mark on one side and replace on the other, like Toski (and others) have done, that's more than the width of the coin. That's a whole ball plus width of coin.

 

Did she mark on one side and replace on the other?

 

She walked up from the side instead of directly from behind, but appeared to mark it conventionally behind the ball and in line with the hole. (May have been trying to be conscious of other players lines) She replaced it slightly closer to herself. It appeared to be about half an inch to the side of where it should have been placed, but did not appear to be closer to the hole.

[Soloman1]

If you mark on one side and replace on the other, like Toski (and others) have done, that's more than the width of the coin. That's a whole ball plus width of coin.

 

Did she mark on one side and replace on the other?

 

I just saw the video and that is exactly what she did.

 

She should be suspended for a time so she can reflect about it.

[llewol007]

Makes the USGA look like it is run by whomever has the guts to take the lead and right now, there is no leadership. To allow an outside entity decide a ruling after the fact just shows that they do not need any rules officials walking the grounds and following the players. Why in the world would they let a person watching at home call in and point out an infraction that they themselves did not catch. And one point to add is the fact that not every player is followed and showed on television unless you are up in the leader board. So why is it that the USGA cannot get this right. I just hope somebody in leadership actually steps up and fixes this mess.

[Mr.Mizzy]

For all those who say rules are rules, and those who say this is a stupid rule...can't we come to a middle ground here?

 

Go back to the games roots. Players call infractions on themselves. If an issue is seen by another player, spectator, official at the course then inform the player and allow them the opportunity to right a wrong by taking a penalty. And for God sake do it on the day the infraction occurred. If you are unaware of a rules breach and sign your card along with someone attesting to that score, how can you have knowingly signed an incorrect scorecard when a penalty is assessed after the fact? Again, it's about integrity. If we want the game to be about that then trust that players are being honest in their play.

 

I struggle to understand any argument for people at home calling in infractions. Opens up a huge can of worms, adds grey area to a sport that doesn't need it, and causes unnecessary controversy. And most people arguing for call ins seem to be strict by the book guys, sorry but I don't see where you are coming from. Let players police themselves like any other non televised round of golf would be played.